JUDGMENT

G.B.PATTANAIK, J.

(1) SPECIAL leave petition was listed before us on 6/9/1996 and the same was dismissed but it was indicated that the reasoned order will follow and accordingly this order is being passed.

(2) THE question for consideration is whether the central Administrative tribunal, Allahabad bench, committed any error in dismissing the OAs filed before it on interpretation of the different circulars issued by the Railways and following the Constitution bench decision of this court in R.K. Sabharwal v. State of Punjab on the question of promotion of a reserved category candidate on the basis of his normal seniority in the cadre from which he is being promoted.

(3) PETITIONERS 1 and 2 filed OA No. 304 of 1992 challenging the promotion of Shri A.S. Rana, Respondent 6 to the post of DSK-I made on 26/2/1991. The case of the petitioners was that Petitioner 2 joined the Railways as a Junior Clerk on 4/12/1956 and was promoted as Senior Clerk on 1/4/1966. He was promoted to DSK-III on 16/10/1978 and further promoted to DSK-II on 24/3/1989. Respondent 6 belonging to the reserved category was appointed in the Railways as Junior Clerk on 30/10/1983 and was promoted as Senior Clerk on 16/8/1984. He was promoted as DSK-III on 26/11/1986. The said Respondent 6 was promoted earlier to Petitioner 2 to the cadre of DSK-II on 8/10/1987, in view of the post available in the cadre of DSK-II for the reserve category people. When the question of promotion to the cadre of DSK-I came up for consideration against the vacancies meant for general category, the said Respondent 6 Shri Rana was promoted on 26/2/1991 on the basis of his accelerated seniority, he having taken advantage of accelerated promotion being a member of the reserved category. Petitioner 2 filed a representation before the authorities making the grievance that Respondent 6 could not have been promoted to a post meant for general category and the authorities illegally promoted him, but not being successful therein, challenged the promotion of Respondent 6 before the tribunal. The railway administration filed their counter-affidavit before the tribunal taking several technical objections regarding the maintainability of the proceedings at the behest of the association. So far as the merits of the case are concerned, it was contended that no doubt Respondent 6 had been promoted to the cadre of DSK-III and DSK-II against the reserved vacancy following the roster but so far as promotion to the cadre of DSK-I is concerned he was considered against a vacant post in the general category on the basis of his normal seniority and ultimately he has been promoted in accordance with the circulars issued by the railway administration and in accordance with the law laid down by this court in Sabharwal case. The tribunal following the decisions of this court in Sabharwal case as well as Virpal Singh Chauhan case rejected the application on the conclusion that the alleged promotion of Respondent 6 was much prior to the decision of this court in Sabharwal case in the year 1995 and promotion already made cannot be interfered with.

(4) DR Rajeev Dhavan appearing for the petitioners, however, vehemently contended that the accelerated promotion of a reserve category candidate cannot confer on him the seniority in the promotion cadre and therefore the impugned promotion of Respondent 6 made in February 1991 to the cadre of DSK-I must be held to be invalid and inoperative and the tribunal committed gross error in rejecting the OA. We find no force in the aforesaid contention. In Sabharwal case this court was considering the question of promotion and the filling up of the post in the promoted cadre and the implementation of the rosters indicating the reserved point. In explaining the legal position this court held that the "running account" is to operate only till the quota provided under the impugned instructions is reached and not thereafter. The vacan